It's Good To Be King

In the past six months, many facts have come to light that have shown us the dramatic- and unparalled- steps the Bush administration has taken to increase Executive power and put themselves above the laws of our nation. Presidential signing statements freeing him from obligations against torture or free himself from Patriot Act oversights, warrantless wiretapping, bypassing Congress on issues requiring legislative approval, and many other actions. These actions have been justified with national security imperatives and given legal cover by the President's operatives in the Justice Department. Most of this has been roundly ignored by both Congress and the press (some exceptions do exist, of course). These are dramatic steps that should give every self-respecting American pause.

Now a new Boston Globe article puts a lot of this in perspective-

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government...

That should be even clearer by the President's assertion that there needs not be a 'balance' between the branches. His branch, he asserts, is the only power that really matters. The actions of the other two are nice and all, but he is free to disregard them at will. And to make this even more frightening, he and his lawyer claim his justification for this imperial power grab is derived from the Constitution (using an interpretation of Article II that most members of Congress have agreed is absurd at best). According to the President's belief, what the Founders meant by a separation of powers was that the President has all the power... and the other two branches can have some separate powers too, I suppose, as long as they don't interfere with the President's personal political prerogative.

The Globe article is 7 pages long and worth reading it in its entirety. It's one of the best overviews of the ways in which this administration has been reworking to radically alter our American system of government. This is the biggest scandal of this presidency and also one of the least discussed.

Glenn Greenwald, who has been blogging daily for the past few months about presidential abuses of power, has a detailed analysis up on all this. Also worth reading in full. Money quote for me from his writeup-

It is not hyperbole to say that these actions and theories are as antithetical to democracy as can be. The country intensely debates all sorts of controversial issues (torture, Patriot Act renewal, eavesdropping powers); legislative compromises are reached by the American people through their Congress, often over the objections of the President; the President signs those bills into law -- and then he simply decrees that those laws are irrelevant because he has the power to violate them at will...

...It is not uncommon for a President to refrain from executing a law which he believes, and states, is unconstitutional. Other Presidents have invoked that doctrine, although Bush has done so far more aggressively and frequently. But what is uncommon - what is entirely unprecedented - is that the administration's theories of its own power arrogate unto itself not just the right to refrain from enforcing such laws, but to act in violation of those laws, to engage in the very conduct which those laws criminalize, and they do so secretly and deceitfully, after signing the law and pretending that they are engaged in the democratic process. That is why the President has never bothered to veto a law -- why bother to veto laws when you have the power to violate them at will?

I think that about sums it up.

Let us also remember the administration's growing efforts to criminalize journalists and whistleblowers.

Meanwhile, Digby looks at how the Republicans have become a "dictatorship of puritanical busybodies", as opposed to the constitutional absolutists who 8 years ago began the process of impeaching the President for the obstruction of justice in a civil case. Henry Hyde, then-head of the House Judiciary Committee, said this "The rule of law is what stands between us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties." But when dealing with an unpopular President with delusions of God-given grandeur who's professed an open hostility to the legislative branch as a whole? They look the other way or cover for him directly. Their standards have disappeared almost entirely.

How far we've come.

This is a very serious problem. As I stated last month, when Congress appeared ready to help validate the President's actions, "There is no point to laws or Congress if the President is accountable to neither". That is the main point that Congress has ignored and the overarching scandal that the media has ignored. At this point, I don't know what it would take- if anything- to get them to understand that.

The only hope is a Democratic takeover of Congress this Fall. They're not perfect, but they will do oversight.

If interested, some other takes in the blogosphere on this story:
-Firedoglake: Chasing the Chief Thief
-Andrew Sullivan: King George Watch
-Once Upon A Time: It Can't Happen Here